[ivraatiems]

Every time Linus Torvalds' rude behavior comes up on HN, people leap to his defense. Then, people leap on top of those people for leaping to his defense. Personally, I fall strongly in the "he's rude and annoying and should stop it" camp. For the sake of productive discussion, I'd like to list a few things that are not valid defenses to his dickishness:

1) "He's a visionary developer." Yes, but plenty of visionaries are also friendly and polite. You can have a strong opinion and argue it strongly without descending into namecalling.

2) "He's built something millions use." That we live a world where having success allows you to be a jerk is a bug, not a feature. Respect for the Linux kernel would be respecting the people who work on it, which Linus rarely does.

3) "Kernel developers are used to this kind of behavior and can take it." That doesn't meant they ought to have to. And plenty of kernel developers have left. It feels like there's a big to-do about somebody retiring from the kernel once every couple of years, at least.

4) "It's his project and he can do what he wants with it." Maybe. It's largely the world's project now. But even if it were totally his, having the right to do something doesn't mean one ought to do something.

5) "You couldn't do it, so shut up and let Linus do his job." It's not, and has never been, about me.

I hope that by listing these, I can short-circuit some of the repetitive arguments on this topic... or at least confine them to one comment chain.

[pdkl95]

> I fall strongly in the "he's rude and annoying

That's your opinion, which is fine, but remember that other people may have their own opinions.

> and should stop it"

I think he's handled many situations very well. Mr. Torvalds only uses this type of language after a problem has persisted for a long time, usually after repeated attempts (either directly or through his "lieutenants") to fix the problem.

If the polite nudges don't work, stronger language can be necessary. There is a difference between careful use of strong language to make a specific point, and a personal attack or continuing grudge.

Mr. Torvalds has always had strict standards for code formatting because mix-styles eventually becomes a mess that is harder to maintain. Attacking the coding style is good management. It's cherry-picking to pull the one swear word he used.

> rude behavior

Sometimes strong language caries meaning. Cultural differences can make this a bit of a gray area, but in this case, a minor use of strong language was very effective at conveying just how bad those comment styles are for the long-term maintenance of the kernel.

It's slightly too long to include here directly, but please read this short work (poem? blank verse?), "How a plan becomes policy".

http://ogun.stanford.edu/~bnayfeh/plan.html

I'm not trying to justify arbitrary use of swearing or other rudeness. I'm suggesting that strong language is data which is foolish to ignore if it's used carefully.

> [items 1-5]

Most of these seem to be projection, not actual arguments that are used in the defense of the language.

[ivraatiems]

> Mr. Torvalds only uses this type of language after a problem has persisted for a long time, usually after repeated attempts (either directly or through his "lieutenants") to fix the problem.

That's not true. See for instance this message [1] and its follow-up email [2]. My reading of that example is that the person Linus is yelling at didn't even know there was an issue until the yelling started. That's not appropriate behavior.

> There is a difference between careful use of strong language to make a specific point, and a personal attack or continuing grudge.

Yes, and conduct like what's said in the article, and mentioned above, and countless other examples, fall on the personal attack side of the line.

> Sometimes strong language caries meaning. Cultural differences can make this a bit of a gray area, but in this case, a minor use of strong language was very effective at conveying just how bad those comment styles are for the long-term maintenance of the kernel.

In this case I suppose you could argue that it is minor. In many cases it is not. Yes, strong language carries meaning, but I think we disagree about what that meaning is. Plus, you can have strong language without being insulting or cussing someone out.

But even so, do you really think anybody would have ignored Linus if he'd said "this is the comment style I want for kernel code, and I expect you all to abide by that requirement"?

> I'm suggesting that strong language is data which is foolish to ignore if it's used carefully.

It's not being used carefully. It's being used aggressively and in a personal manner. Linus himself has admitted this. [3]

[1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-acpi&m=136157944603147&w=2

[2] http://marc.info/?l=linux-acpi&m=136158011003318&w=2

[3] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/07/passion_of_torvalds/

[blastrat]

I find I get more from what other people contribute if I focus on what they say and mean, rather than how they say it. For instance, a Japanese person is used to a hierarchy of polite and formal modes of addressing people, but their hierarchy doesn't apply where I come from, but that doesn't mean they don't have anything useful to say, so I struggle a bit to ignore the frills. That burden is on me.

Focus on the message, more or less polite doesn't really have to matter. When I try to do that myself, in reading what you say I realize you really say nothing to me (NOP!), it's all about how to say things. The facts you present (visionary developer, built something millions use, gets along with his cohort...) you yourself attempt to undermine.

But, do read this, it's a funny take on this type of debate (with permission of the author, Jeff Bigler, license to copy below):

| All people have a "tact filter", which applies tact in one direction to everything that passes through it. Most "normal people" have the tact filter positioned to apply tact in the outgoing direction. Thus whatever normal people say gets the appropriate amount of tact applied to it before they say it. This is because when they were growing up, their parents continually drilled into their heads statements like, "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all!"

| "Nerds," on the other hand, have their tact filter positioned to apply tact in the incoming direction. Thus, whatever anyone says to them gets the appropriate amount of tact added when they hear it. This is because when nerds were growing up, they continually got picked on, and their parents continually drilled into their heads statements like, "They're just saying those mean things because they're jealous. They don't really mean it."

| When normal people talk to each other, both people usually apply the appropriate amount of tact to everything they say, and no one's feelings get hurt. When nerds talk to each other, both people usually apply the appropriate amount of tact to everything they hear, and no one's feelings get hurt. However, when normal people talk to nerds, the nerds often get frustrated because the normal people seem to be dodging the real issues and not saying what they really mean. Worse yet, when nerds talk to normal people, the normal people's feelings often get hurt because the nerds don't apply tact, assuming the normal person will take their blunt statements and apply whatever tact is necessary.

| So, nerds need to understand that normal people have to apply tact to everything they say; they become really uncomfortable if they can't do this. Normal people need to understand that despite the fact that nerds are usually tactless, things they say are almost never meant personally and shouldn't be taken that way. Both types of people need to be extra patient when dealing with someone whose tact filter is backwards relative to their own.

[Copyright © 1996, 2006 by Jeff Bigler. Permission is granted to redistribute this text in its entirety, provided that this copyright notice and either the URL for the page (http://www.mit.edu/~jcb/tact.html) or a link to it is included. All other rights reserved. ]

[ivraatiems]

I think the burden is on both parties. I consider the goal of professional communication to be "exchange as much information as possible in a way that is understood by everyone." For example, in Torvalds' situation, he needs to convey to everyone "don't use these kinds of comment format, it really matters to me that you follow my rules on this" in the maximally efficient way.

I argue that the most efficient, productive way to do that is to go a neutral course: Say what you mean, but don't insult or harass someone while doing it.

Bigler's piece strikes me as true and accurate, but at the same time, doesn't imply that nerds communicate by saying "hey, fuck you asshole, here's the way to X Y Z!" That is, I take it to mean conversations flow like this:

Nerd A says: "Idea X"

Nerd B says: "Idea X isn't right and definitely won't work."

Nerd A heard: "Nerd B doesn't think Idea X is right or will work."

Normal person heard: "Nerd B thinks my ideas are stupid."

not like this:

Nerd A says: "Idea X"

Nerd B says: "Fuck you, that's stupid, how could you EVER think idea X was good?! You're an idiot."

In this case, I think both Nerd A and Normal Person would be insulted. The discourse has become unnecessarily and unproductively personal. That's what Linus is doing. There's a difference between "direct"/"blunt" and "rude"/"insulting."

[blastrat]

an alternative way of looking at this kerfuffle every time it breaks out is the old Arab proverb, "dogs may bark but the caravan moves on" which I always take to mean, "others can be counted on to criticize, but doers keep doing".

Yes, sometimes there is a dog travelling with the caravan too :)